Allowed

Sri.Kashinath S/O Padadanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2021WP/109304/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka directed state authorities to pay enhanced land compensation and interest to a petitioner under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following an undisputed final award and delayed disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents No. 4 and 5 to pay compensation of Rs. 11,61,044/- plus interest under Sec. 34 within four months.

Sri.Kashinath S/O Padadanagouda Patil Vs the… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

W.P. No. 109304/2019 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KASHINATH S/O PADADANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O GUDDADA DEVALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN 583 277.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.B. PATIL MADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF REVENUE REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANASOUDHA,

¶13

BENGALURU-01.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL, PIN: 583 211.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL, PIN: 583 211.

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN: 583 211.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, KUSHTAGI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN: 583 277.

¶18

¶19

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., 1,2,3,4, I.T. PARK, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶20

RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO RELEASE THE AWARD AMOUNT IN TERMS OF THE AWARD DATED 22.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B & ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for the

¶26

following reliefs.

¶27

a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.3 to release the award amount of ` 11,61,044/- as per the award dated 22.12.2012 vide Annexure-B passed by the respondent No.3, with interest at 18% per annum from the date of award till its realization to the petitioner; and

¶28

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 26.07.2018, made by the petitioner vide Annexure-M and for other reliefs.

¶29

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶31

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged by the petitioner by referring to the documents annexed thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the award at Annexure-B dated 22.12.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 redetermining and enhancing the compensation amount payable in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has not taken any steps to disburse/ pay the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner even after the petitioner submitted a representation at Annexure-M dated 26.07.2018 to respondent No.3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has neither received the compensation amount as per the award passed in his favour nor the accrued interest thereon in terms of Sec. 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the respondent No.4-

¶32

¶33

beneficiary and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the writ petition has no merits and sought to dismiss the same.

¶35

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the award at Annexure-B dated 22.12.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 enhancing and redetermining the compensation payable in favour of the petitioner which has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioner as well as the respondents, the concerned respondent No.4 would clearly be liable to pay the compensation in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Annexure-D written by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4. Despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances and other material on record, the respondent No.4 has not taken any steps to pay the compensation in favour of the petitioner in terms of the said award, thereby

¶36

¶37

becoming liable to pay interest in terms of Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶38

So also, a perusal of Annexure-D dated 03.01.2014 addressed by the respondent No.3-Land Acquisition Officer to the respondent No.4 will indicate that despite respondent No.3 intimating respondent No.4 about payment of the award amount in favour of the petitioner as long back as on 03.01.2014 itself, coupled with the subsequent correspondence between the respondents despite such compensation is not paid in favour of the petitioner even till today.

¶39

Under these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents No.4 and 5 to pay/ disburse the compensation in favour of the petitioner in terms of the said award dated 22.12.2012 together with interest as per Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as requested in the petitioner’s representation at Annexure-M dated

¶40

¶41

26.07.2018, within a period of four months from the date of

¶42

receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶43

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

¶44

disposed of.

¶45

SD/JUDGE

¶46

bvv

Sri.Kashinath S/O Padadanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Kashinath S/O Padadanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekappa Kariyappa Benakannavar, Vs Smt. Mamatazabegam

Hanumanthappa S/O Bhimanna Vs S. Rajashekar S/O Shanmukhappa

Smt. Neelam W/O Oshripad Betgeri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Basavaraj S/O Mahantappa Angadi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Tirakreddy S/O Venkreddy Alavandi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited Vs Smt.Subhadra W/O Late Mr.Irappa Badiger